Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The Group: Divided, Defiant, Delusional

Yesterday’s Chronicle featured a statement endorsed by more than 1,000 Duke students asking, “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?” To the students, it sounded like a group of 88 professors who, “in a time of intense emotions and enormous stakes, when our community dearly needed a call for calm, for patience, for rational and careful thinking . . . instead took a course of action which escalated tensions, spurred divisions along lines of race and class, and brought our community into greater turmoil.” The Duke students termed themselves “ashamed by the apparent decision of these faculty members to exploit a tragic situation to further their own political and social agendas.”

Accordingly, the students demanded either an apology from the Group of 88 or President Brodhead to “come forward and defend his students against the assaults launched by his own faculty.”

The timing of the student ad could not have been more appropriate: it coincided with a major article from the Chronicle’s Chelsea Allison and Nate Freeman exploring the Group’s attitudes after the AG’s report explaining his proclamation of the players’ innocence. The headline: “Profs stand by ‘social disaster’ ad.” There would be no apologies from the Group of 88. (One of the 88, Math professor Arlie Petters, had previously expressed his regrets for signing the ad; the other 87 signatories have refused to do so.)

That said, the Group members quoted in the article—History’s Claudia Koonz, Pete Sigal, and William Chafe; and History/Women’s Studies professor Jocelyn Olcott—appeared to take different approaches to the path ahead.

Divided. Koonz’s comments best captured this division. She admitted that Mike Nifong had committed “misconduct”—an almost unprecedented assertion for a Group member, most of whom spent months enabling the disgraced district attorney’s efforts. She also conceded that the signatories of the ad were “naïve”—a remarkable statement in many respects, given that we’re talking about professors at one of the country’s best universities. More important, Koonz affirmed that while she would still support the statement, “I would just add one more sentence: ‘Let the justice system decide.’”

The Group’s statement, of course, declared that something “happened to this young woman [Crystal Mangum]”—not “allegedly” happened or “might have” happened. It also said “thank you” to protesters “for not waiting and for making yourselves heard”—protesters who in the 10 days before the statement appeared had blanketed the campus with “wanted” posters and who had carried banners reading “Castrate.”

In short, the philosophical change that Koonz retrospectively endorsed would have required re-writing much of the statement, not just one sentence. At least, however, she was somewhat apologetic in tone, and wasn’t attempting to deny the ad’s purpose.

Defiant. Contrast Koonz’s approach with the hard-line responses of Olcott and especially Sigal.

Olcott declared, “We have a lot of work to do to close the wounds that have opened up, but I hope that the healing can start now.” This is an admirable sentiment—but since Olcott refuses to acknowledge that the actions of the Group contributed to the “wounds that have opened up,” her call for “healing” to “start now” seems more like a desperate plea for the Group not to be held accountable for its actions.

Olcott also bizarrely rationalized her decision to sign the statement by citing the media portrayals of Duke from late March and early April of 2006—most of which, as we know now, were based on a false premise that a crime occurred. The women’s studies professor told the Chronicle, “I’ll admit that the combination of all these stories coming out made me ask myself, ‘Would I want my niece to come to Duke?’ I want this to be a place where someone like her can thrive intellectually and personally, and that wasn’t what I saw.” I e-mailed Olcott to ask whether, given the conduct we have seen from Duke professors over the past 13 months, she would want a nephew who played lacrosse to come to Duke. She didn’t reply.

Sigal, meanwhile, suggested that the ad wasn’t even about the lacrosse case—its copious references to events of March 13/14, and the guilt-presuming student quotes, and the thanking of protesters apparently referenced some other, unknown, event. He added that he signed the statement because “I support working with students to help amplify their voices.” I e-mailed Sigal to ask how many other full-page Chronicle ads he had signed onto (either before April 6, 2006, or since that time) containing anonymous student quotes. I also asked what steps he took to ensure that the quotes in the ad were accurate, and actually came from Duke students, as opposed to non-Duke students who attended the March 29, 2006 forum. He did not reply.

It is, moreover, difficult to take seriously Sigal’s “student-based” agenda given his silence, and that of every other Group member, to obvious attempts to silence student voices—whether in the form of death threats against Reade Seligmann last May, or questionable in-class conduct by some Duke professors (including several in the History Department) late last March. It seems as if Sigal is more interested in “working with students to help amplify their voices” if he agrees with those students’ positions on issues of race, class, and gender.

Delusional. Meanwhile, William Chafe identified the true victims of this case—the Group of 88. And he lashed out at the real villains—people who produce blogs.

In an e-mail to the Chronicle, the former Dean of Faculty wildly contended, “I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’ have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and [used] racist and violent language to attack us—including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths and calling us ‘Jew b-’ and ‘n-b-’.” [emphasis added]

Chafe cited no evidence to substantiate his allegation about “bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’.” But coming from the same person who argued that the whites who kidnapped, beat, and drowned Emmett Till provided the appropriate historical context through which to view the behavior of the lacrosse players, unfounded allegations are no surprise.

Quite beyond the unintended irony of accusing “bloggers”—as a bloc, stripped of their individuality—of denying the “individuality” of people who signed a joint public statement, Chafe’s claim is absurd on its face. Imagine how such a threatening phone conversation would work:

Chafe: Hello?

Blogger Who Has Targeted the Group of 88: Prof. Chafe?

Chafe: Yes.

Blogger Who Has Targeted the Group of 88: I am a blogger who has targeted the Group of 88. I now am going to shower you with vile racist, sexist, and anti-semitic epithets . . . By the way, please visit my blog at www.racist.blogspot.com.

Unfortunately, since the Group has publicly claimed to have involved the police in this matter, Chafe’s very specific allegation—that not anonymous e-mailers but “bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’” have engaged in criminal activity—needs to be treated seriously. I contacted every blogger who has done more than one post about the Group and its activities (except for Johnsville News, which has no e-mail contact info). I asked each whether he or she had phoned or e-mailed Chafe or any other Group member; and if so, in what context.

The responses: Bill Anderson, Michael Gustafson, and La Shawn Barber, as well as the bloggers from Liestoppers, Friends of Duke, Lead and Gold, Betsy’s Page, Crystal Mess, and John in Carolina all noted that they had never called or e-mailed Chafe. Anderson, Gustafson, and JinC noted that they have had a few pleasant, professional exchanges with other Group members; the others had no e-mail or phone contact with any Group member.

I have e-mailed many Group members at various stages of the case to request comment. Along these lines, I e-mailed Chafe once, on May 3. The full text of my e-mail exchange with him is here. I doubt that anyone could argue that my two e-mails wished his death or in any way used violent language.

So who, precisely, are these “bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’” to which Chafe referred? I suspect that we will learn their identity at about the same time the Group of 88 takes the advice of the masses of Duke students represented in yesterday’s ad and issues a joint apology.

Unfortunately, many of these G88 members have gotten to where they are today by being professional victims. I do not expect them to apologize anytime soon. The fact that Brodhead continues to enable them to speak and make fools of Duke University shows what a wimp he is when the chips are down.

I am continually amazed at how they all claim to constantly get death threats and hate mail, yet provide no examples of such. Meanwhile, they make hateful comments about "white males of privilege" and compare their actions to the murder of Emmitt Till.

Yet, God forbid you challenge them on their racist remarks.

I guess we don't understand that because they are the victims (according to them) and what they say matters and if we chose to challenge their views we are hateful and making death threats.

Give Chaffe credit for making a public statement with out having to resort to anonymous quotes. I don't think he should take the threats he receives personally.

The e-mailers are reacting to the larger issues of racism, sexism, classism and homophobia. It doesn't have anything to do with what he said about the Duke rape case. The skin heads who are emailing him simply want a dialoge on these social issues.

For a moment I thought I was posting in the wrong place. No previous poster has mentioned the new listening statement published in the Chronicle yesterday, signed by 1000 students and linked by K.C. in this post. Wow. Oh, wow! Way to go Duke students. Payback time for the 88. How is Brodhead going to weasel out of this? Listen up, Trustees.

These nut cases from group of 88 amaze me. They can throw out all the vile attacks they wish but when someone responds with the truth it is a racist/bigotted/hateful attack. You either agree with them or you need to be silenced. The reason only one of them has had the courage to admit they were sorry for signing it is simple, in their circle either you are with them 100% or you are the enemy. There is no room for dissent, free thought or differing opinions. The last thing they want is people thinking for themselves, their whole victimology view point is totally dependent on people giving up their free will and mindlessly following them.

I used to think the religious right was intolerant, but any more these left wing kooks like the group 88 scare me with how intolerant they are. I think deep down they are insecure in their beliefs and they are so fragil that they can't for a second think they did anything wrong or their whole world would crumble around them. The last thing they ever want to do is rationaly examine their beliefs, that would be too dangerous. It is far safer for them just to keep on drinking the koolaid.

I suppose it is easier to point fingers at others rather than examine one's own actions. Rather pathetic that the finger-pointing is coming from educators at the university level, but I guess that's what Angry Studies is all about...blaming someone else for your own unhappiness.

Interesting that the very men these professors have denigrated over the last year have shown more class than all of the 88 put together.

If Chafe is refering to the folks who post on blogs, rather than just KC, as "bloggers" then what he is saying strikes me as largely accurate. Many of the posts on this blog are thoughtful (which is why I read it) but, equally, I have been appalled at some of the crude, hurtful, ignorant things that have been said by a number of posts on this blog about the profs who signed the statement. Attacking the profs to further their own campus culture agenda may make these posters feel good about themselves, but it doesn't move the discussion forward at all. And if you don't believe me about these types of posts, just go back to some of the earlier threads following a G88 blog or ask KC about some of the posts he has had to remove.

Anon at 5:16 The G88's Listening Ad focused not on the details of the alleged criminal activity on the night of March 13/14 but instead focused on larger, wider societal issues.

That is what they say. If so, unfortunately, the professors did a poor job of communicating their focus. There were too many references to the event for it to have been irrelevant.

Such as persistent racial discrimination in the workplace, especially against women of color.

All too frequently, prospective clients will explicitly state their desire to avoid financial dealings with African-American businesswomen.

An issue that I agree needs to challenged continually.

When AG Cooper documented the Duke lacrosse players insistence on hiring two white businesswomen, he legitimized the G88.

See, this is the bit I don't get. The players have been excoriated by people who thought they asked for black dancers and that this evidenced racism. You claim that by booking white dancers, they were racist. They can't win.

I think this wasn't about whether they respected white or black women more or less. This was about attraction. They booked white dancers because they are turned on by white women. If that's racist, then that opens up a whole new level of discussion.

There was NOTHING in the "Listening Ad" that had anything to do with racial discrimination in the workplace. It contained a series of quotes that either 1) focused on events that didn't happen at the LAX party (e.g., the false statement that "something happened") or 2) general statements from black people who go around proclaiming that whitey is still enslaving them (e.g., the "big black man" comment). My guess is everyone who made a comment that was placed in the Ad would vote in favor of reparations. They think they got something coming from white people in the 21st century for events that happened in the 17th -- 19th.

As to hiring white or black strippers. I've seen strippers of various colors over the years. My foremost criterion is that they be easy to look at (i.e, attractive). Neither Nickki nor Precious met that criterion. I would have sent 'em away. The LAX guys proved how racist they weren't by letting them dance.

Re: the group of 88. Why is it so difficult for seemingly intelligent people to admit their mistake? If they turned inward what would they find? Emptiness? Shifting Sands? Subterfuge? Hubris? or An Honest Friend?

Chafe and the rest of the G88 inserted themselves into the issue, and into the real world outside of the sheltered world of academia that they are accustomed to, with that ridiculous ad.

Now they can't handle it. Chafe is responding the only way a self-righteous, sheltered academic can; claim the moral high ground, in this case by claiming victim status.

Since he really wasn't victimized, he made something up.

Obviouly not a stand up guy.And his problems go deeper than that; he's the same guy who projected his own deviant feelings about black women's sensuality onto the case with that wierd comment about them being more sexually expressive, and such.

Interesting line towards the bottom of the article, "It is unclear who authored the ad." Typical- use anonymous quotes from students, straw men arguments (e.g. bloggers who... without naming them) and god forbid they have a open discussion about the lax case recorded.

I think if the boys were guilty the 88 would be rushing to claim they helped write.

The mystery of the 88 is like many of the mysteries of the case--everybody knows they presumed guilt and they pretend they did not. This is no different then the fact that everybody knew that the falsely accused had not done what they were accused of and 95% of people knew they were innocent but we had to go through an expensive charade that undermined basic american values. Here, the 88 can't retract their statement as they have already said it had nothing to do with the alleged crime(???) so what to retract. Of course, everybody knows they presumed guilt and wanted a lynching, that is why they made NO statement in support of fair process. They know, they know we know, they know we know and so forth.

And the whole death threat thing is sick. Guess what...all those Duke students, alums and friends are against death threats as well. Bad death threats. bad. bad.

But...let's see..when one of your actual students was threatened with death and attack in an actual lynch setting..SILENCE. Why? Because you presumed guilt and figured it was fine.

For the record, I am against racism, death threats, and unfair process. If we ever find the mysterious blogger who has emailed nasty things to the 88, lets have the dpd chase them down. But, given the 88 silence, their opposition to death threats is only contextual.

Professor of homosexuality might be a more fitting title for Pete Sigal than professor of history since his publications and courses are mainly about homosexuality throughout history.

Sigal, like the other feminist professors, used the ad as a means of "gender baiting". It gave him the opportunity to support hatred of vile rich white male athletes who apparently are historically responsible for all deviate sexual behaviors.

Lemme see... leave out the feminist-racist etc. stuff, nobody anywhere likes to be wrong. And teachers get particularly comfortable pointing out the errors of others; they are not so delighted when the shoe's on the other foot.

And certain categories of teacher are much less flexible than are others.

If any of the 88 do waver, I predict it will be the ones who teach physics, etc.: they at least have something to fall back on to salve their pride. Geez, if you teach English, AAS, Wymen's Studies, etc., you have nothing but your pet ideas, opinions and pronouncements. If those pronouncements are proven to be valueless - if you ever admit that - then who's ever going to fly you in to lecture?

They all sound quite anxious to 'start the healing' now, which is interesting. What this healing process needs to start, however, is for Brodhead to step up with explanations, apologies and a full external review of the university's response to the hoax. But they can't do that until they settle ($$$) with the boys. I would think/hope that for this reason, Duke/Brodhead would like to settle quickly. It would be in everybody's best interest, and in the interest of healing. In fact, terms of apologies and investigations will be the toughest part of the settlement negotiations, I'd expect.

Sigal's position is easily understandable after you've read a synopsis of the Sexual History Around the Globe course he will teach in the fall:

Students in the seminar will be confronted with the question, What does it mean to sexualize history/" We will ask how we can sexuality not just as a topic of study, but as a reading practice. What happens when we focus a feminist and queer analysis on history. How does the historical narrative change as we use sexuality as our reading practice? What happens to the sign of history when confronted with the sign of sexuality? As we read historical narratives that focus on a wide cariety of topics, we will discuss those topics by developing sexuality as our reading practice. Thus, when we read a military history, we will ask not just about sexuality as a topic with the military (did soldiers have sex with other soldiers? did soldiers impregnate prostitutes?), but also about sexuality as a reading process (what happens when we center our entire analysis of the military by sexualializing the bodies of the soldiers? what happens when we read the military as a sexualized institution?) Similarly, all other topics will be sexualized in our reading practice. We will read primary and secondary literature from various time periods and locations: hence will perform sexual histories around the globe.

"Indoctrinate U: The FlyerWarning: On college campuses, hanging flyers that do not meet with the political approval of school administrators can be hazardous to your academic career. As a result, you should not post this Indoctrinate U PDF flyer on campus if you are at all queasy about having to defend your free speech rights"

I would love to see this flyer in Duke campus, next to Angry Studies department..

Of course, the Group of 88 are crazy people. We've got to look at the reality that (apparently) the vast majority of blacks in Durham wanted to exact racial revenge against these boys so badly that they didn't care whether or not they were guilty. This is the underlying power reality that allowed the Group of 88 to operate.

In short, I have simply lost hope that the black community in the U.S. will ever cease demanding and exacting revenge. I've lost hope that the Democratic Party will cease abeting this desire for revenge. The problem is that there is a constituency for this desire for revenge.

Oops, I think my Postman just left my wife's Duke Reunion Weekend Annual fund solicitation out in the rain.

Certainly Mike Nifong must be the root cause.

Thank you Mr. President and esteemed Trustees for your continued and consistent leadership.

I'm not certain but the letter may have even asked for unrestricted gifts. Now that is funny.

Maybe a $0.50 gift is in order to the AAAs program to reward them for allowing Houston Bake to go to Vandy.

Oddly all of these recent solicitations (Annul Fund, Duke Chapel, Renuion Weekend)are dated 11/06. What's up with that? Does everything in Durham move in slow motion; we're in receipt five months after they've been written?

Somewhat OT, but it occurs to me that the G88 reaction to criticism (you're a racist!) is the same as the reaction when one criticizes Israeli policies and actions (you're anti-semitic!). Wouldn't it be grand if we could discuss things rationally, like real grown-ups, without the accusatory rejoinders? If you don't have an answer, I guess it's easier to accuse.

10:27 amAgreed. I know personally that money and privilege do run rampant at Duke. I know that other issues exist as well. I agree that certain faculty members were opportunists (understatement). The ad was badly worded. At this point, apologizing is the only way to start the healing- as 1000 Duke students have said.

you have to see "the death threats against gang88" as part of larger meta-narrative in the context of race, gender and class. They may not have actually happened, but they could have, in the proper meta-narrative, so it is valid statement to say that they did, as part of larger meta-narrative in the context of race, gender and class.

i wonder how much it adds to the cost of a college degee to pay all these fruitcakes who offer nothing of value to the teaching profession. i suppose it varies from campus to campus but its gotta be in the 10% range?

The 1,000 students are indeed brave. But reality is the BOT will never have the courage to demand changes unless giving decreases due to their actions.

So if you are please with the manner in which Duke has addressed this complicated issue over the past 13 months - go ahead and give as usual.

If you are not please and want to send a message - I suggest you send in a generous donation of 88 cents! Not sending in a gift or reducing your gift leaves them looking at a reduced total only. Making a donation of 88 cents send a clear message that you would have given (more) but for the way this entire issue is being handled!

Mere apologies from any 88er (except the Math prof who repented last year) should no longer be acceptable.

Only apologies COUPLED with acts of honest contrition, which would involve a repudiation of the false "meta-narrative" that portrays a "history (lies)" white males as feral beasts stalking after innocent maidens-of-color.

It amazes me that Brodhead not only continues to enable these professors, but that, as he said in Chicago, their actions helped spurn some "needed and meaningful conversations." At what point does meaningful and intellectual dialect become slander? I think the G88 passed that line a long time ago and continue to do so.

William Chafe is a maggot who slithered south because if he had stayed in the northeast, he'd be teaching at a community college somewhere.He looks like a sawed off Santa Claus dressed in lumberjack plaid.The old fart is crazy. He has no logical mind left because he's been sitting on his big flat ass too long at Duke.Bounce this loser. Billy Chafe, you stink!

and now for wayyyy through the looking-glass...from Durham's own UBUNTU(iambecauseweare.wordpress.com)- a reminiscence about the great Day of Truthtelling: ... we passed the house where a womyn was gang raped last year, a womyn whose case was dismissed from the criminal “justice” system like almost all of the cases of survivors i know who have reported their sexual assualt or rape...

The immaturity of the members of the group of 88 is laughable.If they had admitted their mistakes and apologized, people would probably lose their anger towards them, and it would be a start in gaining them some self respect.Instead they continue to make one lame excuse after another, that doesn't fool anybody.What a bunch of buffoons.

It is comments like yours that discredits the blog in general and takes away from thoughtful posts. How can we be expected to be taken seriously when perjorative statements such as that are made that clearly have no substance? I refer you to the thoughtful poster at 6:03 am.

Brodhead, no doubt, will leap at Chafe's false accusation and issue a statement condemning the "assault" on the Group of 88.These folks are so extreme(radical left) that they have no shame!The quotes were bizarre---especially the one that asserted that Duke, given the events of 2006, may not be a place where one's niece should attend.The Group of 88 helped create that climate.Similarly, Brodhead used the rape hoax as a reason to push the campus initiatives. Duke admins and faculty are living in a fantasyland.

you are an idiot when it comes to understanding the art of literary criticism

you wouldnt have a clue whether it was horacian or juvenialian criticism that was being offfered

the end of our democracy is at hand as long as imbicles like you ARE PROUD when criticism is removed, when criticism is banned by the likes of the Group of 88, when those who died to protect free speech have their last measure of devotion used to remove WORDS that are cutting...and finally when cowards like you pridefully paint over the words you dislike

KC writes: "So who, precisely, are these “bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’” to which Chafe referred? I suspect that we will learn their identity at about the same time the Group of 88...issues a joint apology."

Ah, KC, the Gang will make us listen to crickets before we listen to their apology. No matter. After Dave, Reade and Collin get through with their lawsuits (bless their little hearts), I'm looking forward to listening to the statement the Gang makes at its new job - the one that goes "You want fries with that?"

To anon at 1:31. Don't think anything positive is going to happen at Duke with Brodhead there and Steele as board chairman. Apparently, most of the board is on board with the racist/sexist agenda of the Group of 88. They are complicit in their silence.

Let’s not forget – the Chronicle gave voice to the Gang of 88 by publishing their objectionable Listening Statement, and the follow up “clarification” ! Had this so-called “school paper” properly exercised the discretion expected of them, had they displayed the perception in reviewing this “advertisement” and recognized it’s incendiary nature, much of the harm would have been diffused. And where have the 1,000 students who signed the petition been for the past year? What about the Class of 2006? Why were they content to collect their diplomas and slink out of Durham while this fire raged, spoiling their senior year and sullying, badly, the reputation of their school? Only 88 members of the faculty signed this terrible, hateful document, but it’s more than those faculty members who have stood up for the students, or repudiated the 88 – by a factor of 20 ! ! Everybody’s getting on the bandwagon now, now that it’s safe; only the women lacrosse players had any guts to take a stand when you had to go with your gut. It has been a terrible episode for so many, but what sickens me the most is the silent complicity of the vast majority of Duke’s faculty and student body.

4:19PM said:"Only 88 members of the faculty signed this terrible, hateful document, but it’s more than those faculty members who have stood up for the students, or repudiated the 88 – by a factor of 20 ! !"

This is not at all true, in fact. FODU stopped gathering faculty signatures at 89 (the number is significant, in FODU's opinion)

viewable at

http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/01/list.html

The number of supportive faculty in all forms, which FODU stopped counting at 97, is available to be viewed at

The only way you can begin to fight is, first, stand in front of your mirror and scream "Racist! Sexist!! Homophobe!!!" at yourself 100 times. That will help inure you to their most effective "argument" -- which is really just a way of silencing argument.

If you are particular sensitive or active in the fight, you may need to do this several times a week at first.

The letter from the Economics Department, hardly a repudiation of the deplorable comments of their colleagues, wasn’t written until JANUARY 2007 !

Lawrence Evans, Physics, didn’t speak out about the classroom issues until FEBRUARY 2007.

Two tepid examples of a flaccid response from the Faculty. 88 faculty members expressed disdain and revulsion toward their own students and their values; 90 or so express “support” or “concern” for the events, never raising the issue beyond something that is discomforting, or peculiarly inappropriate. Nothing that indicates any appreciation for the jarring, night sweating fear experienced by the accused players and their families. No outrage over the vicious slander by their colleagues, the prosecutorial abuse or the moral bankruptcy of the Administration as they let their students swing in the breeze.

Even now that it is "safe" to come out, where are the hundreds of other faculty members? Sorry, but this is one really bad bunch of rotten apples – almost the whole barrel.

After seeing several followup comments referencing your post, I decided to check it out.

OK, you're appalled by a number of posts you deem "crude, hurtful, and ignorant", but what's your view of the G88 "Listening Statement" now that we know the Nifong/Mangum crusade was a complete hoax?

Coincidently, some might view it as "crude, hurtful, and ignorant" while others might deem it presumptuous, vile, agenda-driven, racist, etc.

Could some, having watched this horrid tale unfold for over a year now, be beside themselves with anger that the G88 have not in any way, shape or form addmitted their knee-jerk rush to judgment, nor have they said anything that would initiate the healing process.

You say that the so-called "crude, hurtful, ignorant" posts do nothing to move the discussion forward, but regarding the G88, when was there ever a discussion? That pre-supposes two sides have a voice.

It seems to me, that for anything meaningful to happen with the G88, there needs to be a public expression of meaningful contrition on their part. Failing that, some posters will vent their frustrations, and they won't always be gentle.

I posted the 6:03 message and my point was very simple. KC dismissed Chafe's charge that he had been viciously attacked by bloggers by saying that neither he nor the other 6 or 7 people with blogs on the subject had attacked Chafe in this manner. Chafe, though, was likely not talking about KC but about people who have posted comments. And the fact is, there have been vicious, unfounded attacks on him and some of the other 88 signatories. As Exhibit A, look at the post at 1:16. And one doesn't need to go very far to find Exhibits B-Z, either.

This doesn't excuse playing the victim card or refusing to acknowledge that the ad was hurtful. Indeed, whether the open ad was hurtful or the signatories have apologized are important issues that should be discussed, but don't provide open season for irresponsible posts. What's the point in defaming a defamer?

If folks want to use this site for self-therapy to soothe their frustration by engaging in vicious rants, fine, but I would prefer that they just scream at their bedroom mirror, instead. I go to this site to read intelligent commentary. My hunch is that most other folks do, as well.

how nice to see YOU defend the group of 88..ill bet you would have done the same for HITLER, STALIN, CASTRO, MUGABE, CHAVEZ

the mantra of colleges is "lets get along" except you cowardly outlook doesnt APPLY to moral americans, christians, jews, or white americans who BUILT THIS NATION...they are the targets of dummies like you simply because of who they are and how gifted they are

the jerks, and YES they are jerks the SIGNERS of the GROUP OF 88 manifesto DID SO WITHOUT A SINGLE FACT to support the manifesto...prove im wrong ?

they encouraged the VIGILANTE-ISM, they encouraged the RACIAL ACTIVISM, they encouraged the TRANSFERENCE of hatred towords the players to include every ILL in the world, they encouraged an IMMORAL STANDARD that only cowards like you could defend

please continue to mislead american students with your misguided sense of ethics...you and the dummy at dukes deserve each other..

it easy to see why american corporation are being taken over when dummies like you set the agenda to be defended

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review